HOW DO CULTURE AND FAMILY DEFINE THE DEVELOPMENT OF

PERSONALITY?
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

Recent Annual Reviews of Psychology have had chapters dealing with personality (Wiggins
& Pincus 1992, Magnusson & Töerestad 1993, Revelle 1995) and with culture (Shweder &
Sullivan 1993, Bond & Smith 1996a, Cooper & Denner 1998), but not with both culture and
personality. The culture and personality topic is con-troversial. Bruner (1974) assessed the
field as a “magnificent failure.” Shweder (1991) saw little that can be considered positive in
this field. For instance, Shweder argued that (a) individual differences in conduct are
narrowly context dependent and do not generalize across contexts. Thus, global traits do not
exist. Shweder further argued that (b) early childcare practices per se do not have predictable
consequences for adult character, (c) the greater the cultural variation, the smaller is the
situational comparability, and that (d ) “objective” conditions, such as rein- forcers and other
“external” stimulus events, do not predict the accommodation of an organism to its
environment.More positive evaluations have emerged recently (e.g., Lee et al. 1999a). Leetal.
(1999b) edited a book that vigorously defended the utility of culture and personality studies,
summarized the history of this topic, and provided chapters about Mexican, Chinese, African,
German, Indian, and Japanese personality, as well as studies for the improvement of
interaction across cultures. Piker (1998) thought that Shweder’s objections to previous work
employed “straw dummy tactics”

Personality is shaped by both genetic and environmental influences. Among the most
important of the latter are cultural influences. Culture is transmitted through language and the
modeling of behavior when conditions permit humans to communicate through shared
language, by living in the same historic period, and when they are sufficiently proximal to
influence each other. The overarching model of cultural influences on personality that we
have adopted in this chapter is that though biological factors have an important role in
shaping personality, they do not account for most of the variance. Ecology, among other
factors, shapes the culture, which in turn shapes the socialization patterns, which shape some
of the variance of personality (Maccoby 2000). For example, Rohner (1986, 1999) has shown
reliable links between socialization practices and personality. Both within and between
cultures when parents accept their children (there is much hugging, comforting), the children
become sociable, emotionally stable, have high self-esteem, feel self-adequate, and have a
positive world view. When parents are rejecting (hitting, using sarcastic language,
humiliating, neglecting), their children become adults who are hostile, unresponsive,
unstable, immaturely dependent, and have impaired self-esteem and a negative world view Of
course, historical factors and cultural diffusion also shape cultures, but limitations of space
preclude their discussion. Broad empirical support for such a model does exist (e.g., Singelis
& Brown 1995). In addition to these factors, we consider other constructs that are needed for
a better understanding of the way culture influences personality.

.
 CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Culture

The conceptualization of culture is by no means a simple matter. One possible way to think
about culture is that “culture is to society what memory is to individuals” (Kluckhohn 1954).
It includes what has worked in the experience of a society, so that it was worth transmitting to
future generations. Sperber (1996) used the analogy of an epidemic. A useful idea (e.g., how
to make a tool) is adopted by more and more people and becomes an element of culture
(Campbell 1965). Barkow etal(1992) distinguished three kinds of culture: metaculture,
evoked culture, and epi-demiological culture. They argue that “psychology underlies culture
and society.

Personality

Funder (1997) defined personality as “an individual’s characteristic pattern of thought,

emotion, and behavior, together with the psychological mechanisms hidden or not—behind
those patterns”. Characteristic sampling of the information in the environment, which
corresponds to the sampling that occurs in different cultures, can be one of the bases of
individual differences in personality.
Personality may also be conceptualized as a configuration of cognitions, emotions, and habits
activated when situations stimulate their expression.Generally,they determine the individual’s
unique adjustment to the world. This view is supported by data that indicate the importance
of the situation. For example, the authoritarian personality is characterized by submission to
authorities, aggression toward people who are different, and conventionalism (Pettigrew
1999). Interestingly, Russians who are high on this trait reject laissez-faire individualism,
whereas Americans who are high on this trait support this type of individualism (McFarland
et al. 1992). Rejection of individualism is consistent with Russian conventionalism, whereas
support for individualism is consistent with American conventionalism.
 CHAPTER-3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Level of Analysis
Studies that use culture as the N can provide different results than studies that use individuals
as the N. Thus, below we attempt to make explicit the level of analysis that was used in a
particular study.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON PERSONALITY

includes socialization patterns, which shape personality (Maccoby 2000). In the sections that
follow we review studies showing the specifics of some of the links we have just discussed.
DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE
Complexity
Cultures differ in complexity (Chick 1997). The most contrast is found between
hunters/gatherers and information societies. Gross national product per capita, although not
sufficient, is one index of cultural complexity. Other indices include the percent of the
population that is urban, the size of cities, personal computers per capita, etc.

Tightness
In tight cultures norms are imposed tightly (see above). In loose cultures deviation from
norms is tolerated. Such tolerance is found in relatively heterogeneous societies (where
several normative systems are present), where people do not depend on each other much, and
where population density (e.g., opportunity for surveillance) is low. An open frontier is
related to looseness (Triandis 1994, 1995).
Collectivism
Triandis (1994, 1995) proposed the hypothesis that collectivism is high in cultures that are
simple and tight. Carpenter (2000) obtained empirical support for the correlation of
collectivism and tightness. In collectivist cultures people are interdependent with their in-
groups (family, tribe, nation, etc.), give priority to the goals of their in-groups, shape their
behavior primarily on the basis of in-group norms, and behave in a communal way (Mills &
Clark 1982). There are many kinds of collectivist cultures. One important distinction is be-
tween vertical (e.g., India) and horizontal (e.g., the Israeli kibbutz) collectivist cultures.
Vertical cultures are traditionalist and emphasize in-group cohesion, respect for in-group
norms, and the directives of authorities (Bond & Smith 1996b).
For instance, vertical collectivism is correlated with right wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer
1996), the tendency to be submissive to authority and to endorse conventionalism. Both
vertical collectivism and right wing authoritarianism correlate positively with age and
religiosity, and negatively with education and exposure to diverse persons (Pettigrew 1999,
Triandis 1995). Horizontal collectivist cultures emphasize empathy, sociability, and
cooperation (Triandis & Gelfand 1998).Gabriel & Gardner (1999) recently found another
variation of collectivism between genders. According to their research, male collectivism is
derived from group memberships (e.g., “I am an American”); female collectivism is derived
from specific relationships (e.g., “I am Amanda’s best friend”). A defining character of
people in collectivist cultures is their notable concern with relationships. For example,
Ohbuchi et al. (1999) showed that collectivists in conflict situations are primarily concerned
with maintaining relationships with others, whereas individualists are primarily concerned
with achieving justice. Thus, collectivists prefer methods of conflict resolution that do not
destroy relationships (e.g., mediation), whereas individualists are willing to go to court to
settle disputes (Leung 1997).
Individualism

At the cultural level of analysis (in which the number of cultures is the N of the analyses),
individualism is the other pole of collectivism. In vertical individualist cultures (e.g., US
corporate cultures) competitiveness is high, and one must be “the best” in order to climb the
hierarchy. In horizontal individualist cultures (e.g., Australia, Sweden) hierarchical
differentiation is de-emphasized, and the emphasis is on self-reliance, independence from
others, and uniqueness (Triandis & Gelfand 1998). This is only a partial list of dimensions of
cultural variation. Many more (e.g., Hofstede et al. 1998) have been proposed, but limitations
of space do not allow their presentation here.
Recent Findings on Individualism and Collectivism

Greenfield (1999) suggested that the individualism-collectivism contrast corresponds to the

“deep structure” of cultural differences. We concur and thus feel that it deserves special
attention and emphasis in this review. In recent years there were almost 100 studies published
annually examining some phenomenon from the point of view of these cultural patterns. For
example, Marc Bornstein (e.g.,Bornstein et al. 1999) has published numerous studies
concerning mother-child interactions in several cultures and has found that the contrast
between collectivism and individualism provides a helpful framework for the findings.
Although a complete review of this literature is beyond the scope of this chapter, a number
of key recent findings are summarized in this review. The terms individualism and
collectivism are used at the cultural level of analysis, where the number of observations is the
number of cultures (e.g., Hofstede 1980). In such data individualism is the polar opposite of
collectivism. As mentioned above, results at the cultural level may differ from results at the
individual level of analysis. Thus, different terms are used to indicate the level of analysis.
Individualism and collectivism are used at the cultural level, whereas at the individual level
of analysis (i.e., within-culture analyses), the corresponding terms are
idiocentrism and allocentrism (Triandis et al. 1985). Idiocentrism and allocentrism are
personality attributes that are often orthogonal to each other. Idiocentrics emphasize self-
reliance, competition, uniqueness, hedonism, and emotional distance from in-groups.
Allocentrics emphasize interdependence, sociability, and family integrity; they take into
account the needs and wishes of in-group members, feel close in their relationships to their
in-group, and appear to others as responsive to their needs and concerns (Cross et al. 2000). It
is possible for individuals to be high or low on both allocentrism and idiocentrism, though
this may depend on culture. For instance, Verkuyten & Masson (1996) found that
allocentrism and idiocentrism were unrelated in a collectivist sample but negatively
correlated in an individualist sample.
In all cultures there are both idiocentrics and allocentrics, in different propor-
tions (Triandis et al. 2001). Generally speaking, in collectivist cultures there are
about 60% allocentrics and in individualist cultures about 60% idiocentrics. The
allocentrics in individualist cultures are more likely than the idiocentrics to join
groups—gangs, communes, unions, etc. The idiocentrics in collectivist cultures
are more likely than the allocentrics to feel oppressed by their culture and to seek
to leave it.

At the Cultural Level of Analysis

The collectivism-individualism cultural syndrome has been studied intensively (for review,
see Kagitcibasi 1997; Markus & Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1989, 1995). Collectivism-
individualism are broader terms than interdependence-independence as used by Markus &
Kitayama. The latter refer to self-construal which is only an aspect of the cultural syndrome
of collectivism-individualism. An important goal of collectivists is to fulfill their duties and
obligations. Triandis (1995) pointed out that collectivists usually have few in-groups,
whereas individualists have many. Thus, the social obligations of collectivists are quite
focused, whereas those of individualists are fluid and may be converted to obligations to the
larger society rather than to specific in-groups. Consistent with this observation, Oyserman et
al. (1998) found that collectivism increased obligation to the in-group when in-group
membership was made salient.
COGNITION

People in collectivist cultures see the environment as more or less fixed (stable norms,
obligations, duties) and themselves as changeable, ready to “fit in.” People in individualist
cultures see themselves as more or less stable (stable attitudes, personality, rights) and the
environment as changeable (e.g., if they do not like the job they change jobs) (Chiu et al.
1997, Chiu & Hong 1999, Honget al. 2001, Su et al. 1999).

MOTIVATION
The greater the complexity, and therefore individualism, the more people desire to have many
choices and to be unique. Kim & Markus (1999) used several methods to show that in some
cultures people are highly motivated to be unique, whereas in others people prefer to be like
everyone else. Iyengar & Lepper (1999) found that children of European-American
backgrounds were more motivated when they had a choice and showed less motivation when
authorities or peers made the choice for them. Conversely, Asian-American children were
less motivated when given a personal choice, whereas having choices made for them by
trusted authority figures and peers actually produced the highest levels of intrinsic motivation
and performance.

EMOTION
The prototypical emotions experienced by collectivist and individualist cultural members
appear to be different. In a study by Kitayama et al (2000) Americans reported more positive
disengaged emotions (superior, proud,top of the world), whereas Japanese reported more
interpersonally engaged emotions (friendly feelings, feel close, respect). Also, compared with
the Japanese,Americans reported more positive than negative emotions. Mesquita (2001) re-
ported that emotions in collectivist cultures tend to be embedded in relationships and are
perceived to reflect the status of those relationships. Similar emotions may be instantiated in
self-focused or other-focused ways in individualist and collectivist cultures, respectively.
DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY

The Big Five, Seven, and Other Arguments

Given that all humans are one species and that personality has genetic roots (Rieman et al.
1997), the similarities among cultural groups are likely to be greater than the differences. Not
surprisingly, most personality researchers emphasize the similarities in personality structure
across cultures. Goldberg (1981) makes the case that the Big Five may be universal, because
they each have important survival qualities in all cultures. De Raad et al. (1998) offer a
review of the cross-cultural findings on the Big Five personality factors. The research
program of McCrae and Costa suggests that the basic personality traits are transcultural. They
argue that (a) the same personality structure has emerged in a wide variety of cultures
(Digman & Shmelyov 1996, McCrae &Costa 1997, Pulver et al. 1995, Yang et al. 1999), (b)
traits show the same pattern of developmental change in adulthood (McCrae et al. 1999,
2000), (c) traits are biologically based (Jang et al. 1998), and (d ) acculturation effects are as
predicted (McCrae et al. 1998b). For example, exposing Chinese to Canadian culture in-
creases their openness, cheerfulness, and indiscriminate pro-social behavior and attitudes.
 CHAPTER-4
CONCLUSION

We reviewed links between ecology and culture, and cultural syndromes and personality. In
addition, we identified dimensions of socialization that are related to cultural syndromes,
such as the emphasis on child independence found in individualist cultures and the emphasis
on dependence found in collectivist cultures. In addition to the significant findings that
continue to emerge at the cultural level of individualism and collectivism, sophisticated
theories and methodologies are being developed to understand the personal characteristics of
idiocentric and allocentric individuals within a culture.
A large volume of cross-cultural evidence has been accumulated in recent years in support of
the structural stability of the Big Five model. Although the sheer amount of evidence in
support of the Big Five model is impressive, we have highlighted several limitations in the
current research that are worth considering before making sweeping generalizations about the
Big Five. A challenging but highly promising future direction for the study of culture and
personality is to find ways to successfully incorporate emic as well as etic elements of culture
into the field’s research methods and theories.